quote:

---

After all, as someone is sure to point out every time I mention natural disasters, 'death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person.'

---

quote:

---

About the same time I read a solemn flippancy by some free thinker: he said that a suicide was only the same as a martyr. The open fallacy of this helped to clear the question. Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end. In other words, the martyr is noble, exactly because (however he renounces the world or execrates all humanity) he confesses this ultimate link with life; he sets his heart outside himself: he dies that something may live. The suicide is ignoble because he has not this link with being: he is a mere destroyer; spiritually, he destroys the universe. And then I remembered the stake and the cross-roads, and the queer fact that Christianity had shown this weird harshness to the suicide. For Christianity had shown a wild encouragement of the martyr. Historic Christianity was accused, not entirely without reason, of carrying martyrdom and asceticism to a point, desolate and pessimistic. The early Christian martyrs talked of death with a horrible happiness. They blasphemed the beautiful duties of the body: they smelt the grave afar off like a field of flowers. All this has seemed to many the very poetry of pessimism. Yet there is the stake at the crossroads to show what Christianity thought of the pessimist.

---

quote:

---

How do you know that suicide is not in your god's plan? After all, as someone is sure to point out every time I mention natural disasters, 'death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person.'

---

quote:

---

Certainly Yahweh has ordered the death of a lot of people, even entire nations, for crimes committed by their ancestors.

---

This is unnecessary to your point. We all get the juxtaposition between suicide and death not being the worst outcome and often even "fated" to happen in the Christian viewpoint. You're not amplifying your point; you are sneering. You are saying, essentially: "dkw, I'd like to hear how you resolve this contradiction, because clearly you are an idiot." If she responds to you, it is because she has the good grace to ignore your childish behavior (literally reminiscent of nothing so much as a young teenager who has just discovered he can get a rise out of people by being obnoxious), because she thinks answering your question is more important than answering your insult.

But if she does, it's more than you deserve.

-o-

You'll probably accuse me of being patronizing, but I think you have a lot to bring to our discussions. You have a point of view which is not terribly vocal here, and a greater variety of viewpoints only adds to our richness. But you are not adding anything positive while you constantly strut and sneer and tell everyone how smart you are and how dumb everyone who sees things differently is.

We can all see through the "Have you stopped kicking your puppy?" type questions.
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
mothertree,
It wasn't made entirely clear in the movie. My best read was that he knew if he didn't kill himself, Al Pacino would be able to convince him to father the anti-christ. The devil is very convincing. So, essentially, there may have been another way but he was worried he'd be too weak to resist very much longer.

It's a long and dramatic scene (with an exceptional monologue by Pacino).

Jim,
I think Keanu's case was both martyrdom and suicide.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
The thing I respect about KoM is that he can take back whatever he dishes out. He doesn't get offended. Ever.

I can think of some other posters who dish it out but can't take it back. I have a hard time respecting that.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I have to admit that I am curious as to dkw's response for, say, those people who are in a lot of pain with no end in sight. Is it really better to tough it out and suffer? Does this also mean that people who kill or let other people die to end their suffering are committing sin?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
To be fair, I did tell KoM in another thread that I’d address this question. So it’s not like he’s “calling me out” out of the blue.

It’s very rare that I would say something as bluntly as “God’s plan for you is (or is not) x.” If it were a theological discussion, I would have prefaced my comments with “I believe” or “God, as I understand God” or “according to < a certain bible verse> <traditional Christian teaching> <whatever>.” But this was not a discussion. When someone brings up suicide or suicidal thoughts it changes the rules of engagement that I normally follow in conversation. Tinros and I share enough common ground that I was comfortable speaking to her out of that common belief, without hedging it. And according to that shared faith background, suicide is not God’s will.

Since I don’t believe that God has “ordered the death of a lot of people, even entire nations, for crimes committed by their ancestors,” I can’t address that part of your question.

To preempt what I suspect might be your next question, yes I’m familiar with the Old Testament. I’ve studied it, and I’ve taught sessions on it in graduate school. I do not dismiss it, I hold it to be sacred scripture. But I don’t believe it’s a history book. If you like, I’d be happy to dig out my “different ways Christians understand the Bible” post from a few years back, or I can just tell you that while I take the Bible very seriously, I believe it is a book written by human beings about their experiences of/with God, not a book written by God. Humanity’s understanding of God has developed over time – that progress is visible in the Bible as well as in the traditions and teachings of both Judaism and Christianity since the Biblical books were written. I could never belong to a restorationist church – I have no desire to throw out the last 2000 years in order to “go back” to how the church was in Biblical times, even if it were possible to reconstruct such a thing.

To get back on topic, while I do agree that death is not the worst thing that could happen to a person, I believe that God is sorrowed by a life cut short. And to lose a life to despair must break God’s heart.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I wasn't accusing him of calling you out. I think it's a very interesting question.

It's the whole bit about sneaking the "God orders people killed for no good reason" line into your alleged theology that I found objectionable.

I'm just gonna speak my mind.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I appreciate that.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Suicide prevention rather than theology, I see. I'd like to explore this in two directions, then. First, on what is this based :

quote:

---

And according to that shared faith background, suicide is not God’s will.

---

Is it a Bible passage that people interpret to forbid suicide; a Church or Papal ruling; tradition of unknown origin; or formal theological reasoning from the premise that Earthly life must have a purpose, or some other premise? If the last, who set this out and when was it generally accepted?

Second, do you believe that there is absolutely no circumstance in which suicide is justified? Going for a moment from the premise that we are here to learn from life, might not one lesson be to, as it were, acquire the ultimate in self control? As a rather extreme example, if Hitler had killed himself in 1923, the world would have been spared rather a lot of grief. (Of course, at that time he was just a failed politican with some far-out views about Jews, so it's not clear how he could have gotten the information that would enable him to draw that lesson.) On a more individual scale, I could see killing yourself if you were strongly tempted towards child abuse, if you had no other way out of that situation.

Obviously, the particular situation that prompted my question is one where suicide would be a rather stupid option. (Though you never know; in principle comrade Tinros could be the next Hitler.) But you would think suicide would be an attractive option for a theist - go to heaven right now! Indeed, suicide bombers operate partly on such a premise. So I'm interested in the theology that blocks off this line of reasoning.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Jim,

I really love it when you discuss religious stuff. You've inspired me to look up Chesterton. Keep it up.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Wow. That was a fantastically respectful post.

I don't know of any specific scripture, but the leaders of my church have spoken of life being sacred and that we don't get to tamper with it's beginnings and endings inappropriately. Murder and extra-marital sex were two examples given on that occasion (murder: the unlawful ending of life, extra-marital sex, the possible unlawful beginning of life--because it may bring a child into a non-family.) I assume that suicide is considered another form of the unlawful ending of life.

The idea is that because life is sacred, we don't get to decide when it ends.

As for that being scriptural, well, again, I can think of no direct scritpure. It is more an indirect gleaning from multiple things said.

I am fascinated by Dana's thoughts on the Old Testament. They aren't far off from mine. While I hold the Old Testament to be scripture, I think that sometimes people were intepreting events to be caused by God that weren't necessarily, or were misunderstood. I look upon many of the happenings with a suspicious eye because of my belief that God is good and merciful.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, we're kind of wandering off the subject of suicide here, but as I recall, the commandments to kill the Midianites were given in exactly the same form as the Ten Commandments : To wit, Moses claimed to have spoken with Yahweh. If you reject the one, surely you need to, at the very least, look rather critically at the other? Moreover, it seems to me that you are cherry picking what you choose to believe in : You are taking only the pleasant parts that make sense to a modern mind. (Incidentally, I should very much like to hear a Jewish and a Moslem perspective on this.)

Edit : Midianites, not Amorites.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I'm sure it seems that way to you. To me, my belief is ruled by my conscience, as I said before. The things that strike me as odd, I view with a suspicious eye. That is all.
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
What's this about ordering the death of a lot of people? It's not just a lot. It's 100%.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Re-reading what I’ve written in the following post, I realize that I’m not really addressing your post in order, but picking the bits that I have something to say about and responding to them. I apologize for that, but it’s been a long day and I’m not really up for anything more systematic tonight. If I miss something you specifically want me to answer, please point it out.

There are many different reasons that various denominations and individual Christians oppose suicide, so I can’t point you to one thing. I’m not even sure that Tinros (or the teachings of her particular church) and I would agree on why suicide is wrong, but I’m confident that we both believe it is wrong. Re: theology to prevent suicide bombings, you would have to look at the specifics of the theology/tradition that the individual in question comes out of.

quote:

---

But you would think suicide would be an attractive option for a theist - go to heaven right now!

---

quote:

---

Going for a moment from the premise that we are here to learn from life, might not one lesson be to, as it were, acquire the ultimate in self control?

---

quote:

---

On a more individual scale, I could see killing yourself if you were strongly tempted towards child abuse, if you had no other way out of that situation.

---

quote:

---

Second, do you believe that there is absolutely no circumstance in which suicide is justified?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
I believe it also has to do with the belief that your body isn't yours, it's God's and not yours to destroy.

There's also the idea that life is a gift from God and to throw it away is to reject his gift.

---

I agree with both those points.

And if you'd like a bible verse, try Deuteronomy 4:15.
 

---

Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
Personally, I think that part of the reason that suicide is considered a sin is because of the believe in an afterlife. Many religions believe that our ability to think, feel, and learn are part of our soul, and thus continue after death. A great example of this is in the movie "What Dreams May Come" when Robin Williams' character's wife kills herself.

Since many suicides are the result of depression, for example, the state of mind of a depressed person would not go away with death. Upon finding that suicide did not end the sorrow, this person may become even more depressed, espescially in retrospect of what could be found in life.

I attempted suicide in the 8th grade. Looking back on it, I realize that to find myself trapped (if even for a short time) in that deep of a depression, after death, would have been a personal Hell.

[edited for grammar, spelling, sentence structure, the lot]
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
Check out the text around Philippians 1:21. It's about the need for living rather than dying; doesn't mention suicide, but should apply.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Another reason that suicide is not acceptable in many religions is that it is viewed as murder. Your own murder, yes, but murder none-the-less, as you have chosen to take a human life. And that particular point it covered by the 10 commandments, among other places. Your life belong to God, and it isn't for you to decide to end it.

Murder is a sin, as any other sin, that separates us from God. So God would be opposed to anything that draws us further away from Him instead of closer to Him.

my two cents
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
I feel absolutely no need to "justify" the happenings in the old testament. Why is there such a withdrawal from accepting that God could or would sanction war?

This directly stems, I'm sure, from my belief that the Bible is The Word of God and not man. I believe that you can't separate the two testaments. The New Testament clearly indicates the sanctity and upholds the truth of the Old Testament as the Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

This post wasn't on topic, it's just a response to what I saw as the denial of the OT. I know it is circular to say that the Bible verifies it's own veracity, but it is my opinion that you can't believe the Bible is a good book and believe at the same time that it contains lies and is not really the Word of God. Just like I believe that you can't believe that Jesus was just a good man and not the Son of God and savior of mankind. Good men aren't liars.

That is all... sorry for the interruption..
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
While I think George Carlin is a blathering vile-spewing jack***, he does raise a good point about the sanctity of life.

It's something like this:

If everything that is alive will eventually die, and everything that has lived is dead, where's the sacred part?

I wonder myself.


Katarain -

"Good men aren't liars."

I'm sorry, but I absolutely can't let hyperbole like that slide in this thread. If your definition of 'liars' is anyone who's ever lied, then your statement is most certainly false. I don't know anyone who's never told a lie, and I doubt you do either.

And there's a difference between reading the OT and learning from its lessons and believing that every word is from God's mouth to our ears. In fact, a far as I'm concerned the latter is almost ridiculous. It's like playing the game 'telephone', but over 3000 years and in 4 languages.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I'll go more deeply into the suicides later today, but Katarain, in the OT Yahweh doesn't merely sanction war. He sanctions, indeed orders, the destruction of an entire people, every male down to infants, all non-virgin females, and the virgins are to be kept for the officers of the conquering army to amuse themselves with. (This being the ancient world, that likely means children of 12 or less.) Even if you are going to argue that the Midianites somehow deserved their fate, I hope you won't extend that to the children. And such an argument would be rather loathesome anyway, quite akin to the justifications for the Holocaust.

Bev, there's something I'm not getting here. Numbers 31 starts with the words, "And the Lord spake unto Moses", and goes on to tell how Yahweh orders war on the Midianites. If you believe Moses was either mistaken or lying, why didn't Yahweh correct him? Certainly it wasn't shy about talking to Moses, it spends most of the first five books doing nothing else. Indeed, I seem to recall that when Moses takes credit for finding water in the desert, Yahweh does reproach him and punishes him by forbidding him to enter the promised land. So when Moses lies, he gets hammered. Why do you believe that he could get away with it in this instance, then?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
King of Men, do you need to refer to God as "it"?

Yeah, we get it. You don't believe in him. But you're presenting material from a source, using Moses's real name, presenting questions which assume the basic premises of the work. Why the need for the sly little digs in what has been a mostly civil discussion?
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
KoM... a couple of other random thoughts:

Hope is one of the Cardinal Christian Virtues. Despair (which is certainly relevant to suicide, especially as distinct from martyrdom described above) is complete opposite or absence of hope. In fact, I think the sign over the gates of hell should not be "Abandon Hope all ye who enter here..." but "Enter here all ye who abandon hope."

Also, suicide is the ultimate expression of self hatred. Christianity dogmatically asserts that God made us and loves us. To be hateful of yourself is to be, definitionally, out of God's will, for a Christian.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, is Yahweh male or female? And if either, why? Does it have genitals? Male hormones? A monthly period? Being omnipotent, I suppose it has both the ability to get pregnant, and to make someone pregnant, but 'it' seems a convenient label for hermaphrodite as much as neuter.

In short, it seems to me that gender is an attribute of animals including humans, and Yahweh is no such. Referring to it as 'him' is just a habit from patriarchal days.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Which is why I don't use pronouns to refer to God.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Katarain, I think you misunderstood me. I don't believe the two testaments are seperable either. When I said "this is how I understand the Bible" I was not refering only to the Old Testament.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
It's something like this:

If everything that is alive will eventually die, and everything that has lived is dead, where's the sacred part?

---

quote:

---

Every man has had one horrible adventure: as a hidden untimely birth he had not been, as infants that never see the light. Men spoke much in my boyhood of restricted or ruined men of genius: and it was common to say that many a man was a Great Might-Have-Been. To me it is a more solid and startling fact that any man in the street is a Great Might-Not-Have-Been.

---

quote:

---

Even more so if you do not believe in God, you should bow down in awe and wonder at the great fact of humanity at large and the greater fact of the human individual walking down the street and waving at you.

---

Indeed. And I do.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
And there's a difference between reading the OT and learning from its lessons and believing that every word is from God's mouth to our ears. In fact, a far as I'm concerned the latter is almost ridiculous. It's like playing the game 'telephone', but over 3000 years and in 4 languages.

---

Gee, thanks. What if I happen to speak fairly passable Hebrew?
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
I speak fairly passable English, too, but that doesn't make Beowulf any easier to understand.

Here's a snippet, in Old English:

HWÆT, WE GAR-DEna in geardagum,
þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon!
oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas, syððanærest wearð
feasceaft funden; he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum weorðmyndum þah,
oð þæt him æghwylc ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan; þæt wæs god cyning!
Ðæm eafera wæs æfter cenned
geong in geardum, þone God sende
folce to frofre; fyrenðearfe ongeat,
þe hie ær drugon aldorlease
lange hwile; him þæs Liffrea,
wuldres Wealdend woroldare forgeaf,
Beowulf wæs breme --- blæd wide sprang---
Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.
Swa sceal geong guma gode gewyrcean,
fromum feohgiftumon fæder bearme,


Hebrew's evolved just like any other language.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
My Biblical Hebrew is better than my modern conversational Hebrew, actually.

My cousins tease me when I accidentally use archaic words or verb forms in conversation . . . In any case, Biblical Hebrew is far closer to modern Hebrew than Old English is to modern. More analogous to the relationship between Middle English and modern -- and I can read Chaucer just fine, thanks.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
Katarain -

"Good men aren't liars."

I'm sorry, but I absolutely can't let hyperbole like that slide in this thread. If your definition of 'liars' is anyone who's ever lied, then your statement is most certainly false. I don't know anyone who's never told a lie, and I doubt you do either.

And there's a difference between reading the OT and learning from its lessons and believing that every word is from God's mouth to our ears. In fact, a far as I'm concerned the latter is almost ridiculous. It's like playing the game 'telephone', but over 3000 years and in 4 languages.

---

quote:

---

I also believe that a lot of the strife that the Israelites went through (and indeed are continuing to endure today) are exactly because they failed God's command to kill all the inhabitants of Canaan when He said to. It's too late now.

---

Just wanted to say that I'm not familiar with the context but that scares the sh*t out of me! You seriously believe God would demand that?! Ouch... In all honesty I hope a God like that does not exist...
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
Obviously the Bible does not and cannot contain all the information regarding every action and decision by everyone.

John 21:25 -
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written


In fact, there were many other scrolls that were written containing additional information.

1 Kings 22:45 -
Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?


God did not feel the need to describe everything that went through his mind when he made a decision. As a result, we get accounts of events that may not make complete sense to us.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Bev, there's something I'm not getting here. Numbers 31 starts with the words, "And the Lord spake unto Moses", and goes on to tell how Yahweh orders war on the Midianites. If you believe Moses was either mistaken or lying, why didn't Yahweh correct him? Certainly it wasn't shy about talking to Moses, it spends most of the first five books doing nothing else. Indeed, I seem to recall that when Moses takes credit for finding water in the desert, Yahweh does reproach him and punishes him by forbidding him to enter the promised land. So when Moses lies, he gets hammered. Why do you believe that he could get away with it in this instance, then?

---

quote:

---

But you seem to think it is something I should be losing sleep over.

---

From KoM's perspective I think it's a matter of having a belief set that is, internally, as logically consistent as possible. That's why he's always harping about "picking and choosing" which parts of scripture someone is choosing to interpret literally or metaphorically.

It reminds me of something rivka said on another thread -- she doesn't have a problem holding two mutually contradictory bits of scripture to be true because she doesn't have god's understanding of scripture, she has a human's (limited) understanding. My take on what KoM has been saying about religion all along is that he thinks that sort of thing is silly -- either you accept it as literally true in all respects or you throw it all out as bunk. I hope I'm not misrepresenting him by saying that.

So that, I think, is why he views this sort of thing as something worth losing sleep over, whereas you're comfortable with accepting that your understanding of scripture is limited and incomplete and/or that the scripture itself contains interpretation/translation artifacts/errors.

Actually, I hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone here. I'm going on my understanding of their posts, so if I'm wrong I'm certainly happy to be corrected.
 

---

Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
 
If some bits of scripture are figurative and other bits are literal, and it's up to anyone's interpretation to figure out which is which, and everyone seems to think that their own or their pastor's interpretation is the only one that makes any sense, then it doesn't lead to a very coherent or useful sense of scripture.

Like was there literally a fellow called Moses?
Did he literally get ten commandments on a tablet from g0d?
Did he literally shatter them at some point making the ark of the covenant?

Are Christians supposed to literally be able to handle snakes?
Are Christians really supposed to heal each other through prayer? And is this really instead of rather than in addition to medicine?
Are you really supposed to literally stone disobedient children?
Should slaves literally obey their masters in everything?

Now if you're free to call some things literal and other things figurative, then the scriptures can say almost anything you like. If you are free to say this or that is wrong (because of man's mistranslations, misunderstandings, etc), then you can make the scriptures say absolutely anything.

If the scriptures you hold to are holy, then why do you feel so free to disrespect them?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

If the scriptures you hold to are holy, then why do you feel so free to disrespect them?

---

You ommitted a rather important premise there when leaping your. Why do you presume that our attempts to analyze Scripture with the reason God gave us is disrespect?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Newsflash: Some parts of all writings and speaking are literal and some are metaphorical and some are figurative. Except maybe highly technical user-manual type writing.

If I say, “I left my heart in San Francisco,” do you assume that I had a heart transplant while visiting California, that I fell in love and had to leave my lover, or that I really like the city?

If I meant one of the latter, and you assumed the first, does that mean I’m lying? If I meant the first, and you (being familiar with the song) assume a more metaphorical interpretation, does that mean you're "disrespecting" me?
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
Jesus used many illustrations to teach people. He didn't intend for the people to take the examples literally, but rather to understand the idea behind the illustration.

For example,
"if you have faith like a mustard seed, you can move mountains"

Obviously faith doesn't have volume and so can't be measured against the volume of a seed, and Jesus surely didn't expect his disciples to go around moving mountains. He used symbols to create a mental image that his listeners would be better able to understand. So symbolism is very important in teaching. Likewise, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the rest of the Bible contains other uses of symbolism.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
I have always wondered about the Christian belief that suicide is bad (or sinful). While I can certainly understand that choosing to thor away the gift of life given you by God to be a serious error in judgement, I've not been able to understand if that is indeed enough for one to go to "hell". Personally, I think that God is the one best equipped to understand a suicidal person's thoughts, feelings, and intention and, therefore, to pass judgement upon them.

Now, aside from all of this I had an "aha!" moment about suicide one day listening to the radio as I drove home. One possible reason for suicide being so abhorant to God is that it is a mockery of Christ's atonement. Christ willingly gave up his life (I guess you could consider it a kind of suicide) for the benefit of all of humanity. He possessed powers making it possible through his sacrifice for all people to be resurrected and also for all people to be forgiven of their sins. When a human being commits suicide, they are giving up the gift that is their life, but they have no power to save themselves or others through this action. That being said, I have no idea if that makes sense to anyone else, but to me it made a sort of sense. Whether God actually agrees is another matter entirely. [Oh - and the song that inspired this little "aha!" - Chop Suey by System of a Down ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Bev, I'm reasoning like this : Either the Bible is a reliable guide, or it isn't. If it is not, then the miracles performed by Jesus, the basis of your whole faith, suddenly look rather less amazing.

Now, I think we agree that the killing and rape of children, as described in Numbers 31, is an evil act. If it didn't actually happen, then the Bible is unreliable in this specific instance. If it happened but was not ordered by your god, then Moses - a major source, if not the actual writer - is unreliable; this weakens the whole initial part of the Bible. And if it did happen, and was ordered by Yahweh, then you are serving an entity of really deep evil. So yes, I do think you should be losing sleep over this; in particular, the last possibility would worry me deeply.

Further, I would like to point out that you are being a little inconsistent here. You do not believe, if I understood your remarks correctly, that Yahweh ordered the massacre of the Midians, because it's not an act that makes sense. But you do believe, I seem to recall, that homosexuality is a sin. Well, why should it be? It doesn't do any harm. You can't argue that your god has the right to define sins, because that's exactly the excuse Moses is using for the massacre of the Midians. It seems to me that if you approve the one, you have no choice but to approve the other.

As for the bit about allegory : That's fine when talking about ethics and moral rules. But Numbers reads to me like straight history. "Yahweh (or Moses) ordered such-and-such a war, thus-and-so an order of battle was sent out, and this, that, and the other was taken as booty." There just doesn't seem to be much room for interpreting this part.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Hey, ludosti, is that what the song is about? I've never quite understood it.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

So that, I think, is why he views this sort of thing as something worth losing sleep over, whereas you're comfortable with accepting that your understanding of scripture is limited and incomplete and/or that the scripture itself contains interpretation/translation artifacts/errors.

---

quote:

---

then the Bible is unreliable in this specific instance.

---

quote:

---

But you do believe, I seem to recall, that homosexuality is a sin. Well, why should it be? It doesn't do any harm.

---

Again, you wouldn't say this if you *really* understood LDS doctrine.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
twinky - I'm sure if it's "what the song's about" as much as it's what it made me think about that day. It seems to me that the song is about someone who's depressed and considering (or attempting) suicide. The usage of the phrasology from Christ's death ("Father into your hands, I commend my spirit", "Why have you forsaken me") was what made me think about the relationship between it and suicide.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Ah, okay. So new revelations supplant old ones. Does the BoM allow for future revelations to supplant it as well?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Yes.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Our Cannon is Open. With a capital "O".
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
Absolutely twinky, though all revelation is not necessarily "supplanting" older revelations, but better clarifying doctrine. From an LDS perspective revalation is pretty much an on-going thing. That's why it is so important to have modern prophets (who are privaledged to receive revelation on behalf of the church). There have been many revelations received since the codification of the Book of Mormon that have helped to clarify doctrine (for example the book of scripture known as the Doctrine and Covenants).
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Canon. (sorry)
 

---

Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
 
I'm not talking about things that are obviously symbolic and that are understood by nearly everyone who hears them to be symbolism.

But there are groups of Christians who say that real Christians ought to be able to handle snakes and drink poison without fear. Some (the majority) don't seem to believe that. But is the verse in question being obviously symbolic? Let's see Mark 16:17-19.

quote:

---

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

---

quote:

---

31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
31:19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
31:20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood.
31:21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses;
31:22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,
31:23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.
31:24 And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.
31:25 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 31:26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation:
31:27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation:
31:28 And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:
31:29 Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.
31:30 And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.
31:31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.
31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep.
31:33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,
31:34 And threescore and one thousand asses,
31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
31:36 And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:
31:37 And the LORD's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.
31:38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and twelve.
31:39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and one.
31:40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons.

---

quote:

---

Also, it's nice that you think it's ridiculous, but I happen to believe that God is perfectly capable of protecting the Bible.

---

It's a little early to bring out the big guns, isn't it. Of course God's capable of protecting the bible, but why should he? He didn't write it.

If he didn't want it open to interpretation, he would have sent it down from Heaven fully formed, rather than speaking through the prophets.

And by the way, it's easy to respond to any argument by saying, "Because God wanted to." That's more circular logic.
 

---

Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
 
So if some people interpret that the Bible means you ought to kill people, some other interpret the Bible means you ought to be nice to people, and some other people interpret that it's incoherent, it's all the same to g0d and he's equally happy with all of their interpretations?

If the Bible is the only way back to g0d, I don't see why he wouldn't protect it, if it were going to say things that would lead people to the wrong conclusions.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I thought I posted an "Okay. " to this thread. Not sure where it went...
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
It reminds me of something rivka said on another thread -- she doesn't have a problem holding two mutually contradictory bits of scripture to be true because she doesn't have god's understanding of scripture, she has a human's (limited) understanding.

Actually, I hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone here. I'm going on my understanding of their posts, so if I'm wrong I'm certainly happy to be corrected.

---

Well, thanks for the permission.

That's not what I said. What I said was that I can accept two mutually-exclusive interpretations to both contain Truth (although obviously both cannot be literally true). For instance, there is some debate of the age of the Matriarch Rivka (Rebecca) at the time she married Yitzchak (Isaac). Obviously only one (at most!) can be literally true. But they can all be metaphorically true, especially since each claim of her age comes with a story. Perhaps some or all are metaphorical; that's fine.

(Who knows. Maybe she had done some FTL travel, and really was both 3 and 13. )
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Ah, okay. Sorry I got you wrong.
 

---

Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
*still just waiting for thread to kill itself*

--Enigmatic
(possibly confused)
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Does agreeing with Enigmatic help the thread die, or does bumping it make it live longer?
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

If it is not, then the miracles performed by Jesus, the basis of your whole faith, suddenly look rather less amazing.

---

quote:

---

I do not think it was an evil act. I accept that God is the ultimate judge and has the power and the right to end life or to command an end of life. I assume that He knew that these people would never repent and that the children would grow up to make war with the Israelites....If a human took it upon himself to commit mass genocide, then yes, that is an evil act. But God knows hearts and the end from the beginning.

---

This, in case you were wondering, is why so many of us non-believers are occasionally really frightened of you believers.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Well, based on what you quoted, I'm not sure why that scares you. It's not like we are a separate distinct people with a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day representing God following us around the wilderness. It's not the same time, and I would think that anybody who claimed to have God's say-so to kill a bunch of people is a wacko who needs to be eliminated himself.

Gotta run. Back laterish.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
In all honesty, that frightens me, too, and I'm a believer.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

Basically, I believe that if we have a problem with His commands in Numbers 31, then we have a problem with any judgement from God at all.

---

quote:

---

It's not the same time, and I would think that anybody who claimed to have God's say-so to kill a bunch of people is a wacko who needs to be eliminated himself.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's not the same time, and I would think that anybody who claimed to have God's say-so to kill a bunch of people is a wacko who needs to be eliminated himself.

---

But Moses made exactly that claim. Yes, in a different time, but nonetheless Yahweh has, through personal revelation, ordered mass slaughter. There's no reason to assume he might not issue similar orders again.

---

quote:

---

Our Cannon is Open. With a capital "O

---

quote:

---

Absolutely twinky, though all revelation is not necessarily "supplanting" older revelations, but better clarifying doctrine. From an LDS perspective revalation is pretty much an on-going thing. That's why it is so important to have modern prophets (who are privaledged to receive revelation on behalf of the church). There have been many revelations received since the codification of the Book of Mormon that have helped to clarify doctrine (for example the book of scripture known as the Doctrine and Covenants).

---

quote:

---

I'm reading this to mean that Mormons believe that only officially recognized people high in the heierarchy of the church can recieve revelation?

---

In the LDS church, revelation comes through the prophet and the council of the twelve apostles. Usually in unanimous agreement with eachother.

We believe this follows the pattern in which revelation has always come. Before Christ, through prophets. After Christ, there were the apostles who worked together as a single unit to head the church. Today we have somewhat a combination of both.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Keep in mind that God had many provisions that allowed repentant ones to be saved, so it's not like God had ordered genocide or anything like it.

---

quote:

---

I'm reading this to mean that Mormons believe that only officially recognized people high in the heierarchy of the church can recieve revelation?

---

quote:

---

I'm reading this to mean that Mormons believe that only officially recognized people high in the heierarchy of the church can recieve revelation?

---

quote:

---

Um. No, it IS like that. Or is it only genocide if every last person is killed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
I forgot to mention up earlier, props to Rivka for actually understanding the original Hebrew.

That's unusual, and I like people who are thorough and logical in their pursuit of religion.

---

quote:

---

"Who am I to judge god?" you ask... well, as far as my own beliefs are concerned, I'm the only one qualified to do so.

---

quote:

---

I think there's a role for human reason in understanding God and Scripture. I think the literalist technique downplays the role of reason to an unacceptable degree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:

quote:

---

"Who am I to judge god?" you ask... well, as far as my own beliefs are concerned, I'm the only one qualified to do so.

---

I think this is very well put, twink. (I don't reject the entire notion of God based on it, but I do reject the fundamentalist interpretation of Him.

---

quote:

---

However, it was never God's purpose to exterminate an entire national group because of nationality.

---

So, to clarify: it is okay for someone to claim that God has told him to exterminate all the sinners, and that all the members of a given group happen -- with perhaps an exception or two -- to be sinners?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
That'd be a big fat NO in my opinion.

But I don't think I'm who you were asking.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
To the various Mormons who answered my question: Thanks for the clarification.
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 

quote:

---

So, to clarify: it is okay for someone to claim that God has told him to exterminate all the sinners, and that all the members of a given group happen -- with perhaps an exception or two -- to be sinners?

---

quote:

---

A major part of the message of the Bible is the punishment of all wicked ones and the reward of the righteous

---

quote:

---

There was no doubt in Pharaoh's mind who the true God was.

---

Hm. Actually, I don't see anything in the Bible to suggest that Pharaoh believed that Moses' God was "the" true god at any point. And I think he would have behaved quite differently had he so believed.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well Icarus, then we disagree. But in any case I do not think it is relevant. After all, Truman never claimed to be the divine incarnation of all that is good and just in the Universe. If you like, we can start a separate thread on the atom bombs; but here it is Yahweh, not Truman, who is accused.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Fair enough. I didn't bring it up.
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
Pharaoh may not have felt that Moses' God was the Almighty God of the entire universe, but he finally did recognize that Moses was speaking for a god, and not just speaking his own thoughts. I brought it up to show that God is going to make certain that everyone knows if someone's acting in his name. In other words, if a group of people say they are executing God's judgments, most likely they are not really representing God unless it's clearly evident to everyone. In the case of Pharaoh, it took ten plagues before he came to that realization, and that is the reason why he sent the Israelites away.

The example of the atomic bombs was not meant as a comparison to the Bible book of Numbers. I used it merely to show that the morality of killing people is relative to individual perspective as can be seen by the many differing opinions regarding using nuclear bombs.

So my point is that some people can rationalize the events that they read about in the Bible. Others cannot. Some might say that God does not have the right to determine if someone is a sinner or a righteous person. Others may say that the warfare that he engaged in was ultimately for the greater good, even if we don't understand all the reasons why. So religion is a very personal decision. It's between the individual and God and no one else.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

In the case of Pharaoh, it took ten plagues before he came to that realization, and that is the reason why he sent the Israelites away.

---

quote:

---

Right. So if the whole purpose of the plagues was to demonstrate to the pharoah that Moses was in fact speaking for a God, you have to ask yourself this: why were plagues necessary? Were there no non-fatal alternatives?

---

quote:

---

That's fine for your own internal morality. It's when you begin justifying mass murder that my thoughts turn to machine guns and re-education camps.

---

quote:

---

They progressively got worse, perhaps indicating that God was going to only do what was necessary.

---

Shame that a whole bunch of completely innocent people had to die when all God actually had to do was show up and have dinner with the Pharaoh. Heck, He could have killed the Pharaoh and dramatically reduced the number of innocent Egyptians killed to make that point.
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
I suppose. Although, the Egyptians viewed the Pharaoh as a god, so had he died, the Egyptians would have been very offended and may have felt Moses and the Israelites were responsible instead of their God, thus starting a war with the Israelites resulting in many more deaths than would have been caused by the plagues. Or maybe God just has a style for the dramatic.
 

---

Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
 
I guess that's a good point. If I were a slave for no good reason, I'd rather have my God peacefully present flowers and candy to my slaver than have him put plague up on plague against him. At least, that way, the people forcing me into slavery would have less casualties...the OT God watched out for his own. You're refusing to understand that we believe God's omniscience gives him the right to kill wicked people. You're assuming that innocent civilians died in the plagues, and then wondering how we can believe in the OT God, who is obviously so unjust. Well, we look at it in the other direction. God knows who is and isn't a sinner, so if someone dies because of something God does, it's because God knew he was a sinner, or it was just simply God's will that he die.
 

---

Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
 
This may seem a bit far afield, but supposing an American-born escaped-murderer-turned-Muslim-prophet goes to George W. Bush and says that he's speaking for the one true g0d-- Allah, and Allah says to leave Iraq immediately. George W. for some reason says no. So there are various disasters, frogs, lice, dead cattle. Allah harden's W's heart so W says no repeatedly. Eventually all the firstborn sons are killed. Now think of everyone you know who is a firstborn son. Think of all these dead people. Are all the people you think of evil, sinful people who deserve to be destroyed for the actions of their leader? Do these deaths make you change your mind about W? And do they make you want to convert to Islam and go wandering for forty years?

Now suppose that it came to light that Allah said that he hardened W.'s heart so W. wouldn't listen to Allah's prophet because Allah wanted to kill all the firstborns as a sign to the American people? Would this knowledge make you repent your wicked ways? Do you now accept Allah's judgment as just? Do you feel like he warned you, so what happened is your own fault?

Or is this whole story of Yahweh a parable? And if it is, what does it teach the Chosen People?
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
<--- Dead x_x
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
We're going in circles here without accomplishing anything. Like I stated before, belief in anybody's God requires a certain amount of faith. In this scenario it requires the belief that God's actions are in the best interests of humanity. In reality, we know very little about this event. Many details had to have been omitted, and what details may have changed over the passage of time? Either way, passages like these won't change the beliefs that people already have. Believers will use other passages in the Bible to help round out their opinion of God and rationalize their belief that God is just. Non-believers will find that examples like these require more faith than they are willing to give. And so it goes, round and round and round. I respect how you feel about God, hopefully you won't think of me as an advocate of mass murder.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Actually, as far as I can see, you are defending the killing of thousands, and tens of thousands, for no better reason than that their murder was done by your chosen Fuhrer. I wish you every joy of that, and hope that I will live to see the time when there are no more of your kind walking my Earth.

Have a nice day.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
*sigh*

For the record, I really enjoyed this thread for about the first half of the first page.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

You're assuming that innocent civilians died in the plagues...

---

quote:

---

I wish you every joy of that, and hope that I will live to see the time when there are no more of your kind walking my Earth.

Have a nice day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

You're assuming that innocent civilians died in the plagues...

---

Actually, yeah, I'm sure innocent civilians died in the plagues.

---

quote:

---

I hate this thread now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by akhockey:
I believe that God is the ultimate judge, and if He deemed it necessary for all those people to die, regardless of what age, then I figure He had good reason to do it. And KoM I'm very aware of your opinion of my views, you don't need to act so hard.

---

quote:

---

My understanding of the Old Testament, which is mine and mine alone, and not informed by any study of the subject, is that it is a codification of the oral history and myth of a people. Much like the victors in any conflict throughout history have been known to say "We won because God was on our side,' so did the people of the old Testament. Many misguided things have happened in the name of religion throughout history. The ones that happened in this time period ended up as part of a holy book.

Do I believe the escalating plauges literally happened and caused the Egyptians to let the Israelites go? Nope.

Do I believe that the Egyptians had an amazing run of bad luck that caused the time to be right for a slave revolt, that through exaggeration and retelling became divine retribution against the people who had held them captive? Sounds a lot more likely.

---

quote:

---

Either the Bible is a reliable guide, or it isn't. If it is not, then the miracles performed by Jesus, the basis of your whole faith, suddenly look rather less amazing.

Now, I think we agree that the killing and rape of children, as described in Numbers 31, is an evil act. If it didn't actually happen, then the Bible is unreliable in this specific instance. If it happened but was not ordered by your god, then Moses - a major source, if not the actual writer - is unreliable; this weakens the whole initial part of the Bible. And if it did happen, and was ordered by Yahweh, then you are serving an entity of really deep evil. So yes, I do think you should be losing sleep over this; in particular, the last possibility would worry me deeply.

---

You're saying that either a person's faith is completely false or based entirely on evil. You leave no room for a possible system of beliefs that contains both a caring God and a just God. That's what you believe, and that's fine because everyone's belief is a very personal thing. Without ever having stated my own personal beliefs, I've tried to make the point that there are different ways to view a passage of scripture without being inherently evil, all depending on what your personal view of God is. The posts on this thread have shown that there are indeed many different ways to view the interpretation of the Bible.

Obviously there is no way to definitively say that this person's interpretation is correct while this other person is just a bad, evil man. That's why each person's beliefs have to be made individually based on personal knowledge, experiences, and perspectives of the world. Regardless of a person's beliefs, there are certain standards and ethical rules that a person should instinctively live by. That doesn't change whether a person is an atheist, agnostic, or religious fanatic. So is it that wrong to structure your beliefs based on those moral codes, to adjust your belief in God to match what you believe is morally right? If that's the case, your message should not be "Your God sucks" but rather, you should be trying to convey to people the importance of ethical principles. Once people have acquired that, their belief in God will fall into place.


(I don't even know why I feel like I need to do this, but: This in no way reflects the thoughts or opinions of anyone other than myself. )
 

---

Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
 
ElJay, sorry I somehow missed your post up there, but you're right, I am fresh out of high school and I am still growing spiritually, and I probably won't be able to convey my beliefs as well as I'd like to.

KoM, you really aren't injuring my pride any, so you don't need to feel bad about that. I'm just getting really annoyed by the way you treat my opinion as if it doesn't matter, and that I, consequently, don't matter.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
On the contrary, I'd say you matter a great deal to him.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
It is no insult to be at a level of spiritual development suitable to your age and experience.

When you’re used to talking about your beliefs primarily with people who share a common vocabulary, experiences, and assumptions, it can be hard to express exactly what you mean to an audience that doesn’t share those commonalities. Hatrack is often difficult at first, both for religious folk and atheists, because we have friends here on all sides of the faith questions, and we try not to favor one perspective over the others. It can mean learning a whole new vocabulary, to express certainty in your own position while acknowledging and respecting others’.

Edit: :snort: This post was supposed to come right after KoM’s, and was written to him. It seems to work just as well addressed to akhockey, though. Might be a parable in that.
 

---

Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
 
Yeah, that's definitely a problem of mine, trying to find a way to convey what I mean without restorting to vocabulary that only makes sense to myself and my friends. Inside jokes aren't so funny to those on the outside I guess...
 

---

Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
 
Assuming no unreasonable posts between when I began typing this and when the reply is added, the thread is back on track (or at least back within forum guidelines). Leave it there, or I will lock it without further discussion (whether it gets back on track again or not). If you are unable to post an opinion without including insult or derision, you may refrain from posting.

--PJ
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Nerd.
 

---

Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
 
Eljay said (and Icarus agreed)

quote:

---

My understanding of the Old Testament, which is mine and mine alone, and not informed by any study of the subject, is that it is a codification of the oral history and myth of a people. Much like the victors in any conflict throughout history have been known to say "We won because God was on our side,' so did the people of the old Testament. Many misguided things have happened in the name of religion throughout history. The ones that happened in this time period ended up as part of a holy book.

---

quote:

---

I would say, God's actions as observed (and interpreted) by men and women.

---

quote:

---

I definitely agree that the Bible is God's Word as translated by man, though.

---

But if three believers can't agree on how much of the Bible is g0d and how much is man, then how useful can it be? g0d may have committed no behavior you have to rationalize away, or else he could be the most demonic creature imaginable, but you can't really tell.

So why decide to worship this g0d despite the confusing and difficult evidence?

If the Bible was written by a group of people, who, like so many people, were just a little too willing to interpret any good luck they recieved as g0d's hand, why conclude that there was even a g0d to get involved?

I mean, as I implied above, many of you may simply say that the Old Testament is not the important part. To some of you, it's the New Testament, or the Book of Mormon that's the important part, so no matter how hole-y the Old Testament is, it's not where your faith is based, so whatever g0d is rumored to have done then....

But this g0d thing, it's all rumor. You have no particular reason to think that the New Testament is a more historically accurate rendering of g0d's dealings with man-- it's just more consistent with the sort of g0d most people want.

And the New Testament could just as easily be oral traditions passed on and then written down. A big-fish story. Considering how long it took to get written down, this is not at all far-fetched.

Or perhaps it's all misinterpretations and there was a g0d involved, but he was just trying to say, "Sorry for the inconvenience," and it got a bit garbled.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That's why we Mormon's really like the idea of having a modern, living prophet. We believe that we have unifying guidance in these confusing matters.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

That's why we Mormon's really like the idea of having a modern, living prophet.

---

quote:

---

it's still ostensibly built on the same shaky foundation.

---

quote:

---

So then when you're trying to make use of the Bible to know g0d through his actions, you're on very unsteady ground.

---

Yep. It’s pretty shaky sometimes. Fortunately, I’ve got a few other legs to stand on as well. Those of us in the Wesleyan tradition use what we call the quadrilateral – scripture, tradition, experience, and reason are all ways to know God.

By the way, does your odd capitalization practice have some deeper meaning, or are you just using it to be 1337?
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
This is off topic, but dean, what is the significance of your use of the term "g0d" rather than "god"? It almost seems like you're trying to outwit an obscenity filter or something, but there is only one swear word that Hatrack filters out, and "god" isn't it.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That's cool, Dana. I like that "reason" is one of the ways to know God.

Tom, it has always seemed to me that LDS teachings do not focus much on the Old Testament, except for parts that have been specifically noted as important. (The Fall, for example.) That is why so many LDS, myself included, are not terribly familiar with the OT. Even in our Sunday School classes that cover the OT, we don't go over everything with a fine-toothed comb. We focus on certain parts and practically ignore others.

It is interesting to note that when studying the Book of Mormon in church lessons, there is no part that is glossed over or ignored.

Since the lessons taught are unified throughout the church, the subtle message there is that the parts not covered are either not important or not reliable, while the parts covered are very much deserving of our attention, study, and basing our beliefs on.

I have never really thought of the parts omitted as a "shaky foundation" as much as "not part of the foundation".
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

I have never really thought of the parts omitted as a "shaky foundation" as much as "not part of the foundation".

---

You know, it takes a lot of brass to claim the authority of the Aaronic priesthood while dismissing the Old Testament as "not part of the foundation."
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Note I never said that we "dismiss the Old Testament as 'not part of the foundation'". In fact, I specificially said the "omitted parts". I also stated quite clearly that there are aspects of the OT that are crucial to LDS doctrine. Since you know *a lot* about LDS doctrine, this should be well known to you.

It makes me wonder what your point is.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm just pointing out that saying "This book is the Word of God, except for the parts that this guy says aren't" is in many ways a classic definition of a shaky foundation.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
What about Dana's take on it, then?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It's only a shaky foundation if that is the only beam holding the foundation up. It isn't, so it's part of a much firmer foundation.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
If you don't mind, I'll refrain from elaborating. I completely respect Dana's approach to her faith, but it doesn't work for me and I don't consider it a viable option for a number of reasons. I can't think of any way to elaborate on those reasons, though, that wouldn't come off far more patronizing than I usually seem towards religion.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Okay.
 

---

Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
 
I'd like to hear. I can't really write a reply now, though.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Dana can probably outline Tom's reasons pretty well, if Tom doesn't want to.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Perish the thought. If Tom doesn't want to elaborate, I shall not speculate.

That reminds me though . . . I got a copy of the wedding sermon from Cindy, and Tom was right -- she did say that Bob and I getting together was a miracle second only to the resurrection. And she deliberatly said it in a venue where she knew I couldn't argue about it.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Of course she did. In fact, she said in the sermon that she was doing so, whether it's in the written version or not. Where was this arguement that she didn't? I would have been on Tom's side.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Tom asked at the reception if I agreed with the statement. I remembered it slightly differently -- he was right.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
She probably could, at that. *grin*
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Whether or not you believe that the prophets of the LDS church are indeed prophets of God, it seems to me that having a living prophet to tell you what God actually meant in past scripture is the way to go. Otherwise it's my guesswork against your guesswork.

After all, if the God of the Bible exists and God has made His will known to man, He appears to have always done it through prophets.

I don't think many of us here take the entire Bible to be literal. So you *have* to pick and choose what you think things *really* mean.

It seems the only two stable foundations are the above (living prophet to inform) and believing the Bible to be literally, 100% true and perfect.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
bev, except that from an outsider perspective a prophet (at least a prophet as the LDS prophet appears to me) is no better than my guesswork vs. your guesswork. In an outsider's view, you've merely abdicated doing your own guesswork and have replaced that with the guesswork of another that you believe is authoritative. Which can be seen as just a variation on the literalist take (which can also appear to outsiders as abdicating your own guesswork for that written down by people who you feel are authoritative).

Either way it can be seen as replacing an opportunity for faith with someone else's. I think that in some ways not being literalist or believing in a currently living prophet is engaging and Truthful, in a Kierkegaardian sense.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That's assuming that they are just guessing, and that the Spirit does not confirm what they are saying. Both those assumptions are not accurate.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Sez you. I'll respond at greater length after dinner; unlike comrade TomD, I have no inhibitions about appearing patronising.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Spirit, it seems in the general Christian tradition, can be applied equally... The spirit (theoretically) can just as easily move one to be a non-literalist, non-living-prophet-believer... And the only argument that I've understood to differentiate that requires circular reference to the selfsame authoritative scripture/prophet that you are trying to validate.

This is all from an objective standpoint... If the LDS prophet is actually the embodiment of everything that is claimed, then it doesn't matter if the logical argument is circular.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I prefer the term "scholarship" to "guesswork." It isn't a matter of picking and choosing -- I don't throw out any part of the Bible. It is a matter of considering context, author's intent, genre, etc., and figuring out where each fits in to a consistant, coherent, picture. Weighing also tradition, reason and experience. (Experience, in this paradigm, includes experience of God, or what I believe the LDS would call personal revelation.)
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Bok, I already said that whether or not you believe someone I say is a prophet, having someone who actually is makes sense. For the hypothetical, assume that you *know* he is an actual prophet of God.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

I prefer the term "scholarship" to "guesswork."

---

OK.

quote:

---

It is a matter of considering context, author's intent, genre, etc., and figuring out where each fits in to a consistant, coherent, picture. Weighing also tradition, reason and experience. (Experience, in this paradigm, includes experience of God, or what I believe the LDS would call personal revelation.)

---

quote:

---

Oh, absolutely. I've set up rest stops along the road with lemonade.

I'm trying to be discreet - it could have been a generic "you." It fits in the discussion. I'll add a line to tie it in a little better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beverly:
But it is clear that using these methods, different people will come to vastly different conclusions. Having a mouthpiece for God, helps to unify varying points of view.

---

quote:

---

You're saying that either a person's faith is completely false or based entirely on evil. You leave no room for a possible system of beliefs that contains both a caring God and a just God. That's what you believe, and that's fine because everyone's belief is a very personal thing. Without ever having stated my own personal beliefs, I've tried to make the point that there are different ways to view a passage of scripture without being inherently evil, all depending on what your personal view of God is. The posts on this thread have shown that there are indeed many different ways to view the interpretation of the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Yep. It’s pretty shaky sometimes. Fortunately, I’ve got a few other legs to stand on as well. Those of us in the Wesleyan tradition use what we call the quadrilateral – scripture, tradition, experience, and reason are all ways to know God.

---

quote:

---

Whether or not you believe that the prophets of the LDS church are indeed prophets of God, it seems to me that having a living prophet to tell you what God actually meant in past scripture is the way to go. Otherwise it's my guesswork against your guesswork.

---

quote:

---

What I do know is what the story has come to mean in the Jewish tradition and in the spinoff Jewish group that came to be called Christian – God is a liberator. God is on the side of the oppressed. When God’s people are suffering, God hears their cries. The Exodus stories were the under girding of the American abolition movement, and the civil rights movement. They’re paradigmatic stories.

---

quote:

---

All of which is to say, I don’t know what happened. Maybe there was a plague which a group of slaves attributed to God. Maybe it was wishful thinking. Maybe it was a “that would have shown ‘em” story made up while traveling in the desert. Maybe it happened exactly like the text says. I don’t know and I have no way of finding out.

---

quote:

---

Whether or not you believe that the prophets of the LDS church are indeed prophets of God, it seems to me that having a living prophet to tell you what God actually meant in past scripture is the way to go. Otherwise it's my guesswork against your guesswork.

---

quote:

---

After all, if the God of the Bible exists and God has made His will known to man, He appears to have always done it through prophets.
I don't think many of us here take the entire Bible to be literal. So you *have* to pick and choose what you think things *really* mean.
It seems the only two stable foundations are the above (living prophet to inform) and believing the Bible to be literally, 100% true and perfect.

---

quote:

---

But I think I am safe in saying that the Bible is the foundation of all the rest. Being honest, if you had not been raised in a Christian tradition, would you have interpreted whatever spiritual episodes you think you've had in the same way? Might you not have become a pantheist, a mystic, a devout Moslem, a Hindu, or indeed an atheist who sometimes has periods of great contentment?

---

quote:

---

Likewise, you apply reason to your beliefs, but your beliefs are axioms, not results. To put it differently, you reason about what to believe about your god, but not whether to believe in it; that is by definition a matter of faith. So if the Bible is untrue in parts, I think that shakes your other foundations also.

---

quote:

---

Take a good look at the Christian Right, and tell me the Crusading spirit is gone. Considering who is in power hereabouts, I do not think it at all obvious which school of thought will win out in the end. Crusades have rather more glamour. War is out of fashion with youth in the West; but fashions change.

---

quote:

---

But how is the story of Jesus any different? Surely this is no minor, peripheral matter, as you could perhaps argue about Exodus, but the very heart of your faith. Why do you believe in these miracles, but not those ones?

---

quote:

---

It seems to come down to what you want to believe. In children, this is called wishful thinking. It is not clear to me why the same thing is called, in adults, "faith".

---

quote:

---

Very likely I would have. The Christian story is the narrative I use to structure my experience. Had I been raised in a different tradition, I likely would have interpreted my experience within the narratives of that society. So what?

---

quote:

---

You can call what would do absent living prophets guesswork, but there are two thousand years of tradition, scholarship, and writings that don't rely on living prophets.

---

quote:

---

I am worried about this as well. But rather than abandoning my school of thought I choose to work to promote it. I would prefer that it be the one which “wins out in the end.

---

quote:

---

I will admit that I do believe in a literal resurrection, though. Without that I think the rest would probably not matter so much to me. I’m not saying that finding out the whole thing was a metaphor would totally undermine my foundations, but it would make me sad.

---

quote:

---

I do not understand how you can dismiss this so cavalierly.

---

quote:

---

It's not as though we really disagree on what good ethics are, after all.

---

quote:

---

We are discussing a matter of empirical, if untestable short of death, fact : Does Yahweh, or another god, exist?

---

quote:

---

You might be. I’m discussing a slightly different question: does the Christian faith, including the Bible, move us closer to or further from understanding the nature of ultimate reality?

---

quote:

---

You shall not trouble others;
you shall be reasonable and kind;
and otherwise you may do as you choose.

---

quote:

---

Well, as I say, it doesn't give the details of implementation. But how is it incomplete as an overarching structure?

---

quote:

---

Likewise, you apply reason to your beliefs, but your beliefs are axioms, not results. To put it differently, you reason about what to believe about your god, but not whether to believe in it; that is by definition a matter of faith.

---

quote:

---

About ethics, I am talking basic principles, not engineering details.

---

quote:

---

I think, actually, those questions are not different at all.

---

quote:

---

Friedrich Schleiermacher defined religious experience as “an intuition of the infinite.”

---

He was the first Protestant theologian I discovered (aside from the obvious); I thoroughly enjoyed discovering him.

-o-

Nice post, Bob.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, it seems to me, then, that you have redefined your god to the point of pointlessness. Your description is now so vague that it amounts to waving your hands and saying "but dude, like yeah, I definitely felt something, like, big." If you cannot reasonably ask the question of whether an entity exists or not, then I think it is time to stop right sharp and consider whether that entity is actually useful for anything. Like Reverend Thrower in Seventh Son, you have girded your god about with impressive-sounding words, sound and fury that looks impressive enough, until some child sees through the facade and laughs.

I also think that you are claiming the imprimatur of classical Christianity for your beliefs, where none actually exists; perhaps we could ask Dag whether he believes his god is a 'being' or not?

Now, it does occur to me that you might ask the question "does justice exist, or not?" I would hardly want to argue that we should do away with abstract concepts. But the difference here is that the answer is simple : There ain't no justice. Justice is simply the name we gave to some aspects of human relations. It is not defined outside those bounds. Now, you may disagree with this assertion, but I think you'll agree that it has consistency.

As for your experiences, well, it's your life. But it seems to me rather arrogant to think that the electrochemical workings of your brain should have any deeper connection to the groundwork of the Universe. Why should they, after all? They evolved to get the juicier bit of fruit, or an extra bit of sex when the alpha wasn't looking. Expecting them to pierce the pillars of the earth, and see the meaning of the Universe, strikes me as rather hubristic. In short, I don't think this project of yours is grounded well enough.

About ethics, actually, you may have a point. I'll have to think about that one. But if we are going to argue about where ethics comes from - and I agree that this is even more fundamental than what they are - then the truthfulness of Jesus' claims becomes still more important to his claims of being a teacher. After all, doesn't he say that the law comes from his god? If his god does not exist, then doesn't even his ethics become rather suspect?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I’m sorry that you feel that way. I thought we were making headway in understanding each other, but if you can reduce my post to what you did, I guess I was wrong.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

So I don’t ask “does God, as described in the Bible, exist” in the way that you could ask whether Ender, as described by Orson Scott Card, exists. I ask, rather, do the experiences, physical and mystical/spiritual, that fellow humans have described, written down and struggled with for 2000 years help me make sense of my own experiences, physical and mystical/spiritual. And I find that they do.

---

quote:

---

Now, it does occur to me that you might ask the question "does justice exist, or not?" I would hardly want to argue that we should do away with abstract concepts. But the difference here is that the answer is simple : There ain't no justice. Justice is simply the name we gave to some aspects of human relations. It is not defined outside those bounds. Now, you may disagree with this assertion, but I think you'll agree that it has consistency.

---

quote:

---

As for your experiences, well, it's your life. But it seems to me rather arrogant to think that the electrochemical workings of your brain should have any deeper connection to the groundwork of the Universe. Why should they, after all? They evolved to get the juicier bit of fruit, or an extra bit of sex when the alpha wasn't looking. Expecting them to pierce the pillars of the earth, and see the meaning of the Universe, strikes me as rather hubristic. In short, I don't think this project of yours is grounded well enough.

---

quote:

---

About ethics, actually, you may have a point. I'll have to think about that one. But if we are going to argue about where ethics comes from - and I agree that this is even more fundamental than what they are - then the truthfulness of Jesus' claims becomes still more important to his claims of being a teacher. After all, doesn't he say that the law comes from his god? If his god does not exist, then doesn't even his ethics become rather suspect?

---

quote:

---

I also think that you are claiming the imprimatur of classical Christianity for your beliefs, where none actually exists; perhaps we could ask Dag whether he believes his god is a 'being' or not?

---

This is at the end, because I tried very hard to resist mentioning four years of grad school and a teaching assistantship in Historical Theology. (Obviously I didn’t try hard enough.) It doesn’t make me more likely than you to be right about the nature of God, but I think it does make me more likely to be right about the historical tradition. But let’s ask Dag anyway – I’d be interested in his take on it.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Wups, my gf just arrived, I shall have to continue this tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
*snort*

We apparently have at least one priority in common.

Tom: I shall quibble with you on the "optional" and "smorgasbord" points at another time.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Dana, I'm incredibly interested in your take on the nature of God; it seems to be fairly close to my own conception of the divine or...well...the tip of the iceburg of the divine, anyway. But that's neither here nor there--what prompted me to post was curiosity about what your take on Jesus is. What do you see him as having been?
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
Tom,
I like your ideas about taking the best part of different philosophies instead of limiting oneself to a narrow perspective of life. That seems to make sense, especially if one's definition of God is adaptable anyway.

If you don't mind my asking, I'm curious about your stance on God. Do you believe that some type of god may possibly exist (such as a creator), but not as the god described in the Bible or relevant to our personal existence or future? Or do you believe that god cannot exist and is nothing more than a concept we create in our minds?

KoM, I would like your thoughts on that as well? Additionally, did you grow up in a religious environment or were you raised as an atheist?

The reason why I ask about your religious background is that it seems that any type of response will conflict with your claim that a person's ability to reason is based on how he was raised. Correct me if I misunderstood your assertion.

quote:

---

And then I am further saying that if you throw away these 'bad' miracles because that's not the kind of god you want to believe in, then your hanging on to the 'good' miracles like the resurrection begin to look a lot more like wishful thinking. If one part of the Bible is untrue because it was written by men, then why can't another part be?

---

I kind of agree with you here. The idea of choosing what God you believe in based on what you want to believe God is does seem to be wishful thinking. But as long as you abide by a basic set of ethics (can we agree that Jesus' code of ethics was pretty decent?), is it a bad thing to believe in God? You seem to imply that it is.

Belief in God isn't entirely about having an authoritative figure. It's also about, to quote dkw, "mak[ing] sense of my own experiences, physical and mystical/spiritual." To be sure, there are many alternative philosophies that attempt to make sense of those issues. But just as a belief in God doesn't provide some people with any satisfactory answers, the alternatives don't always provide satisfactory answers either. So as a result, I piece together a God that seems to make sense with my experiences and perceptions of the world. Maybe that's wishful thinking. Maybe that's incredibly naive. But I don't really understand how that can be negative. And I do think you can explore different philosophies while still having a fixed concept of God.
 

---

Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
 
I'm with Noemon, dkw; I'd be quite interested in hearing more about your take on Jesus in particular. Heck, I'd also be interested in hearing more about KoM's background, Tom's hodgepodge philosophy, and Dag's take on the "beingness" of God, as well as anything that Noemon and Icarus (should he choose to rejoin the conversation) might add. Despite a few lapses in politeness, this is a fascinating thread, guys. *grin*
 

---

Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
 
I also feel that Dana's view of God seems to describe my own pretty well, except I don't know what the heck to do with Jesus, so I'm glad Noemon asked that question.
 

---

Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
 
(btw, it seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. If you give final authority to the written source, then you are a Nazi monster. If you give the authority for interpretation to a living prophet, then you're substituting someone else's guesswork for your own. If you feel empowered to interpret scripture yourself and discern yourself which stories are embellishments by the human writers, then you have an empty, hodge-podge faith. It's no surprise that a pair of atheists will find every approash to theism somehow flawed, and it's unlikely that they will find anythign too convincing. I thought the questions was/morphed into "How do you justify this?" and that's the question that the theists have attempted to answer. Beyond that, we may simply be at the end of what's realistically possible in this thread.)
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I have apparently spent so much time and effort (on this thread and others) trying to debunk what I see as a caricature of Christian beliefs that I have been negligent in stating what I actually do believe. I loathe the very idea of “a la carte” religion, and the fact that Tom apparently sees my beliefs in that light has taken me quite aback. I’m doing some re-thinking, trying to figure out exactly where I’ve failed to communicate clearly. (I acknowledge the possibility that I might be deluding myself and actually do subscribe to an a la carte philosophy, but I don’t think that’s really the case.)

The fact is, I completely agree with the first 2/3 of the statement “I just don't see the point in having a God that is not an authoritative, omnipresent, and above all useful deity.” I’m not sure about the “useful” part – I don’t agree with the idea of valuing people for their usefulness, and that includes God. I believe that God is omni-present, omni-potent, omniscient, and all the other tenets of classical theology. I tend to use different vocabulary for it, but I am actually a very orthodox theologian. (quit laughing – it’s true.)

Crud. Now I don’t even know where to start.

The beginning I guess, would be authority. What does it mean to say that something is authoritative? I believe in free will, and a corollary to that belief (for me) is that something has authority over an individual only as it is granted by that individual. Authority is a function of relationship and community. So it doesn’t make sense, to me, to talk about anything being intrinsically authoritative. I suppose there is a possible side argument here about authority by force, but I’m going to sidestep it. I don’t believe that God works that way, and I don’t believe that humans who try to work that way will find it ultimately effective. You can compel obedience (or at least offer a choice between it and death) but unless the person compelled acknowledges your authority, they will find a way to rebel eventually.

So – axiom one of Dana’s systematic theology: authority is a function of relationship and web of relationships (community). It is granted by choice.

I do believe that God is an objective reality – it is our knowledge of God that can never be objective. We can know God only through God’s relationship with humans, and relationships are (by definition) subjective. So axiom two – all language about God is metaphor. There are no words in existence that accurately describe the reality.

So, a metaphor. Not my image, but I have heard the quest for God described as a climb up a mountain. Some people believe there is only one right path, others believe that there are multiple paths that eventually reach the same place. I believe that whichever of those is true, each person can only take one path. To try to pick your favorite steps from each will get you nowhere. Although looking at other folk’s maps and pulling insights from them can be useful, a life of faith is not read about, it is lived. You can study many faiths, you can only fully live one. Usually. I guess I know of some people that are trying to live more than one, but I think most of us do a better job with theological monogamy.

So I choose to grant authority to the traditions of my denomination, including the canonization of the books of the Bible as Holy Scripture. Every. Single. Verse. Even the ones I don’t particularly like. They’re part of the package, and I wrestle with them. But here’s the thing – because of what I believe about the Bible, that it is a collection of books, written from multiple viewpoints, over time, I can’t hold up verses, out of context, and say “here is a timeless truth, valid as a propositional statement in all contexts and at all times.” The question is always, “How does this fit in to the overall picture.”


Some of them I find to be in tension with each other. When that happens, I live in the tension. I’m not particularly bothered by it, as I’d find it much more troubling to force a false harmony on diverse viewpoints. No -- a better metaphor – I don’t want to force a false unison on voices that are singing in harmony. But though I am a narrative theologian, and may occasionally approach the Bible as a literary critic, I never approach it as an editor.

Ultimate authority I grant to God, not to the book. But since I believe that God is known only in relationship, and the best way to find that relationship is in community with other people seeking said relationship, it always brings us back to the book. I believe that the Bible is primarily the story of humanity’s developing relationship (and developing understanding of our relationship) with God. It is not primarily a rule book, a history book, a science book, or a philosophy book. It is primarily a love story. (But an authoritative love story!) Like most love stories, the lovers occasionally misunderstand each other. (And like many love stories, it even ends with a wedding.)

And thus when I say that what I mean by the term “God” is “ultimate reality” and that I believe in the God of the Bible, what I am saying is that I believe that ultimate reality is personal and benevolent. I believe that ultimately love triumphs over hate, justice over oppression, peace over violence. Life over death. Notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary, I believe.

And I believe that I have tried so hard to avoid theological “jargon” in this post that I have again watered it down beyond all tolerance. Oh well. In spite of my failings, I hope this clarifies more than it mudifies.

Noemon, Icky, et. al, I will write a post on Jesus, but it will have to wait for another day. I will be offline until late this evening. I’ve probably got enough verbiage here for several days worth of posting anyway.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
No problem Dana, take your time. I'm looking forward to reading what you have to say, but it can wait.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Dana, that was a wonderful post.
 

---

Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
 
Yes. Very thorough and clear, with food for thought.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm still not sure I understand why it's okay to approach all the various anecdotes within the Bible and the Christian tradition with skepticism, on the assumption that doing so brings you closer to God, and okay to be a committed but skeptical Buddhist who thinks that, just perhaps, the Golden Path is really just a metaphor and there isn't actually an afterlife, but combining elements of those philosophies into a hodgepodge creates a hopeless muddle.

To me, the problematic part is the claim that human reason can be trusted to effectively recognize the authoritative -- and by authoritative, here I mean ultimately Truthful -- elements that may exist in any one religion. Once you grant that, I don't see why human reason can't be trusted to recognize the authoritative elements of every religion.

The reason I find that problematic, of course, is that once people start going "Okay, this part doesn't make any sense to me. It conflicts with this other part, it seems theologically unsound, and I think it's very obviously a product of its time; it's just a metaphorical myth about the formation of a new tribe, perhaps containing valuable character information about the people of that time and their understanding of God," they're now asserting that they're capable of discerning authoritative scripture and/or dogma -- and, at worst, rejecting scripture they believe is not authoritative.

But what grounds do they have for this approach? What entitles them to their interpretation? What logic, for example, permits half of all American Catholics to still accept the Pope as the mouthpiece of God while continuing to support abortion, on the assumption that maybe the Pope hasn't heard God correctly?

Liberal theology, as much as I sympathize with it -- since, after all, my own ethical standards more closely line up with those of liberal theologians -- doesn't make any sense to me. The whole point of religion, beyond the sense of community, is the improved understanding of the universe and its built-in ethical systems, the ability to get closer to a specific God through His own instructions. Looking at those instructions and saying, "Hm. Well, that one was written by a fallible man," to me, implies that one feels perfectly capable of reaching God on one's own terms, albeit with the guidance of some helpful folktales.

And if that's the case, I think we're actually talking about the original concept behind agnosticism -- the idea that God may or may not exist, and even if He does that He's effectively unknowable, but that it doesn't matter. We all become Unitarians at that point.

[ August 24, 2005, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Tom, I couldn't disagree more about the "whole point of religion."

To me, the whole point of religion is to aid in the understanding BY the individual, OF the individual's purpose and "place" in the great (as in vast) realm of existence.

One way SOME religions do this is through "received knowledge" -- that which is passed down (from God, presumably) through some authority figure, an on to the faithful.

Another way is through sacred texts (which some may call the codification of received knowledge -- i.e., an authority figure took up pen or dictated some basic truths).

But those aren't the only way.

And...while it is true that the TRADITIONAL Christian approach is one that heavily relied on appeal to authority, and that Christianity itself was born of an older tradition that also relied on appeals to authority, that does not mean that this is the one and only way that Christians can realize the value of their religion.

In fact, for some of us, "authority" is a very sticky subject. Do I really NEED an intercessor? What is the role of Scripture in my search for my own purpose and place? Does Scripture HAVE TO BE authoritative to be useful in may personal quest?

These are important issues. And while it may seem like we're all just going to turn into Unitarian Universalists if we don't all recognize SOME authoritative "something" I have to ask...so what?

Who do Christians have to satisfy? Does it destroy Christianity if we all don't do it the same? Or does it just make it difficult for non-Christians to figure out what we really stand for? And should any Christian care about that?

There aren't a lot of basic requirements for being Christian. You have to believe that Jesus is the Christ (the savior).

After that...not much else (although some people will try to tell you otherwise, and maybe dkw will have a longer list based on a more thorough understanding than I have of these issues).

But, really, Christianity IS an individual thing. The only reason there's a "religion" (in the organized "churchy" sense of things) is that one of the earliest traditions is to gather together for support, encouragement, and to be more "effective" in whatever we're trying to do.

It's not a card-carrying membership. And even at that, it's not a Bible-carrying membership. Heck, Catholics just a generation older than I am didn't even read the Bible outside of the mass and then it was carefully tailored and explained. And they basically lay claim to the oldest of Christian traditions.

So bother me not with this "authority" thing. And don't try to tell me that my religion must do X for me. I know what I want out of it. And I know what I have to offer in return.

And that's about all I can or will worry about. If it doesn't meet some external standard, I'm not at all worried about it.

If God came to me and said my attitude needed adjusting, I might make the attempt. But I'm not about to go out seeking an increase in "authority" -- been there, done that, not interested.

And yet, paradoxically, I'd be willing to go on record as asserting in the strongest possible terms the right to call myself a Christian.

And to defend vociferously the right of any other person so inclined.

Except for Pat Robertson. His card has been cancelled.

I have it on good authority.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

There aren't a lot of basic requirements for being Christian. You have to believe that Jesus is the Christ (the savior).

---

quote:

---

So bother me not with this "authority" thing.

---

Oh, I won't bother you with it. But I AM curious as to what you get out of being a Christian specifically that you would not get out of being Taoist, Buddhist, or Muslim. You say you assert your Christianity in "the strongest possible terms" -- but why? And why bother? What value is there to "asserting" Christianity when Christianity is being defined as a collection of fables and anecdotes? What moral lessons are available to a Christian that are not available to a well-meaning and determined Hindi?

[ August 24, 2005, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
It seems to me that you're making a choice even when you do follow a path with a stricter reliance on authority. You're choosing to accept that authority. Either way, you're picking what sounds good to you. If the Baptist or LDS tradition in its entirety sounds good to you, you go with it. Who were you to choose the Baptist tradition? What makes you think you can choose between religions, or between denominations of a religion?

Heck, the people who started different religious traditions and Christian denominations were taking upon themselves the power to reject some ideas previously held as true.

People choose their religion, or their denominations, or the specifics of their beliefs, based on what evokes a spiritual response in them. If you're being uncharitable, you might say it's wishful thinking. Otherwise, you might say it felt like revelation to them.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't mean to butt in here, but I do have a comment about your saying, in essence, that a person who was raised Christian will use their reason only within that framework and thus come to conclusions that are based on Christianity.

---

quote:

---

I'm curious KoM: Have you ever had a christian (or other theist for that matter) listen to your arguements and then say "Wow, guess I was wrong. There's no god and I'm an atheist now!" I don't mean that as criticism, in part because if it was you could reasonably say the fault was theirs for not listening to reason. You just seem to put much more time and effort in the debate (and to do it better) than most atheists I know, so I wonder if you've had any success convincing anyone.

---

quote:

---

I do disagree with that assertion. I believe that justice exists, beyond arbitrary definitions. Also love, truth, and beauty.

---

quote:

---

*shrug* So what do you base your deepest meaning on, if not your own experience?

---

quote:

---

Did I say that God does not exist? I don’t believe I did. Surely you’re not of the opinion that when Jesus said “God” he meant a guy in a nightgown?

---

quote:

---

If you don't mind my asking, I'm curious about your stance on God. Do you believe that some type of god may possibly exist (such as a creator), but not as the god described in the Bible or relevant to our personal existence or future? Or do you believe that god cannot exist and is nothing more than a concept we create in our minds?

KoM, I would like your thoughts on that as well? Additionally, did you grow up in a religious environment or were you raised as an atheist?

---

quote:

---

Btw, it seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. If you give final authority to the written source, then you are a Nazi monster. If you give the authority for interpretation to a living prophet, then you're substituting someone else's guesswork for your own. If you feel empowered to interpret scripture yourself and discern yourself which stories are embellishments by the human writers, then you have an empty, hodge-podge faith.

---

quote:

---

So I choose to grant authority to the traditions of my denomination, including the canonization of the books of the Bible as Holy Scripture.

---

quote:

---

But wait. Why do any such thing? What do you gain by it; what is explained by this that couldn't equally well be explained by atheism?

---

quote:

---

Sure, but I'm not the one claiming that my deepest meaning has any connection to the actual workings of the Universe.

---

Of course you are!
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
(And I know I said I would stop cluttering this thread, but I'm bored at the moment, so *shrug* this thread is the most interesting one on the board to me right now.)
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 

AJ
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

What do you gain by atheism that you could not have with a rational approach to theism?

---

quote:

---

I think over and over again you mistake why people believe, and what they get out of it. You assume they believe because of the stories of miracles, as evidence; I don't think this is the case. You also seem to think that people choose faith as a way to get answers to questions that could be answered by science and history; dkw has quite clearly asserted otherwise. It seems to me that she is seeking wisdom of another sort. And this doesn't mean that Christianity per se is necessary to that end, but it's the route that she has chosen.

---

quote:

---

I do believe that God is an objective reality

---

quote:

---

Of course you are!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

There aren't a lot of basic requirements for being Christian. You have to believe that Jesus is the Christ (the savior).

---

But if you believe that, don't you have to believe he's also saving you from something? And doesn't that belief bring with it a fair number of theological implications?

quote:

---

So bother me not with this "authority" thing.

---

Oh, I won't bother you with it. But I AM curious as to what you get out of being a Christian specifically that you would not get out of being Taoist, Buddhist, or Muslim. You say you assert your Christianity in "the strongest possible terms" -- but why? And why bother? What value is there to "asserting" Christianity when Christianity is being defined as a collection of fables and anecdotes? What moral lessons are available to a Christian that are not available to a well-meaning and determined Hindi?

---

Part 1:
The savior, the messiah...the promised one. The promise was to lead the people of God out of slavery. Slavery to what? Maybe, in my case, I'm being led out of slavery to authority.

I know the typical answer would be "sin" or "eternal damnation" but really, since none of the definitions of any of the concepts really are definitive (I hestitate, therefore to call them "definitions"), maybe Christianity is really just a belief that God wants "something good" for me.

I have a lot of patience with this thing, Tom. I mean, really, I'm just bursting to find out what it's all about, but I know that I'll find out later. In the meantime, it's a fascinating life and I can enjoy living it.


Part II: How do I know I'm not also being Taoist, Buddhist and Muslim at the same time that I'm being Christian? Maybe I'm arriving at the same place I would by any positive path? How would I know. I only know what I know, and while I have curiosity about the rest, I also know that I wouldn't abandon Christianity to follow some other path if that's what it took. From what I understand of things, I'd either be giving up something that already works for me, or I'd be simply incorporating other ideas into it. The latter is somewhat appealing, if the new stuff is compatible and extends the whole. The former (abandoning my current faith) is unlikely and would really surprise the heck out of me if that happened.

It works for me. What other criteria should I have? I have no real access to THE TRUTH in this life. I know of no-one else who does either. I see people who claim to, and I don't believe them.

Of course, the real answer is I don't know because I haven't studied all other religions. But so what? I haven't known (Biblically or otherwise) every woman on the planet and yet I feel absolutely sure that I married the right one. I haven't studied all other cars and yet I'm happy with my Hyundai. I picked my dog as a puppy without knowing what kind of adult dog she would become. And yet I'm willing to assert that she's the best 3-fanged dog on the planet.

Would you take a substitute for Sophie and if so, under what conditions? (I only ask this 'cuz I'm sure the answer is NO, of course)

I just don't worry about it. If I'm making a mistake, so be it. It doesn't "feel" like it, so why should I act like I'm worried about it?


Part III:
My God...I hope that there are NO moral lessons that are available to a Christian that are NOT availble to even a Hindi who doesn't mean well. What kind of sucky world would that be if there was ONLY ONE path to moral behavior? What kind of sucky world would it be if there was only path to God?

Just because I believe I found MY one path doesn't mean I can't cheer on people who have found some other path. It's not my job to correct them or steer them, or trip them up, or make them think.

I'd make a really lousy evangelist, tell you the truth. I preface everything with "this is just me."

If someone is seeking and asks me a question, I'll answer. But I don't usually (this thread notwithstanding) go around trying to make sure people know I'm a Christian.

As you've pointed out, that term may have too many meanings to really be informative.

But if someone tries to tell me I'm not a Christian, that's when I will defend my right to call myself a follower of Jesus.

Sure, by their standards I might be a less-than-perfect one. But that's okay. I don't have to satisfy them. It's not their judgement I'll be a-fearing in the good old by and by.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Again.

I sense a fundamental(ish?) disconnect here. I believe that your criteria for what it means to be a believer in ANY faith are not the criteria by which I chose or retain my faith. I also belief that faith is a gift. Like straight teeth.


I have just one more item worth pondering. I believe that you find the contemplation of various philosophies interesting and rewarding, and that the deeper you get into them, the greater your reward.

I'm not built that way. I read philosophy (religious or secular) and experience the mental equivalent of a brain freeze. I have to press my hind-brain into the roof of my mouth just to get the feeling to pass. It's painful. Physically painful. I'm not just lazy about it (okay...I'm lazy about it too). I just don't see the differences between them. Or, I read them and agree with ALL points of view. Or, I read it and suddenly realize 13 pages have passed by and I couldn't tell you what the subject is. Or two treatments of supposedly the same subject are so radically unconnected to each other that I can't even find the common thread, let alone understand the nuances of each author's position.

But I do enjoy thinking about nature and science. And I believe that I have a fairly well-developed power of reasoning -- at least in the field of my expertise I seem to make sense to other people. So, what should I do? Should I seek out that which pains me on the theory that I might find some "better" kernel of thought? Or, should I spend time thinking about the things that excite me and give me pleasure, and, by the way, seem to me to be a useful way to study God?

If I could paint or write music, maybe I'd study God that way. If I could do math worth a damn, maybe I'd study God that way.

I just think we all have these gifts (knowledge, skills, aptitudes, etc.) and we should use them, not trying to use different ones that we don't have.


Long post.

Hope it's not completely tangential.

I hope you don't mind me asking the Sophie question in Part II. I was trying to make the illustration be personal enough, but not offensive. If I crossed a line, I do apologize and I will delete it if it bugs you.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

quote:

---

Surely you cannot believe that, had dkw been unaware of the Bible, she would have interpreted whatever episodes she's had as evidence of the Christian god?

---

KOM...and yet this is precisely what I believe. That the GOD that dkw believes in is manifest and her powers of reason are such that she has reached the conclusions she has because she's clever, observant, and loved.

But I beg to be asked to only answer for myself, not for another person's faith. Would I take it all in and pop up with the name "Jesus" if I didn't know the Bible? No, I don't think so.

But would I, just like the patriarchs, become convinced of the existence of God by the evidence of my own experience of the world? Sure thing. And would I believe, in broad outline, the same general things about that God? Yep.

At least I think I could answer that way for me. Why? Because while I agree that my experiences are given an added depth and meaning by what knowledge of Scripture I posess, I also know that I don't habitually reference every occurrence to some snippet of sacred text. My sense of the holy uses Scripture, tradition, reason, and "heart." They all matter. In fact, I can tell you for sure that I don't get a sense of the holy from Scripture alone, divorced from heart and mind and tradition. Just like I don't get a sense of the holy from the average thought that pops into my head. Or the average emotion.

It all comes together and makes it more meaningful and distinct.

But that was a really good question. I think you may not accept or believe my answer. But I assure you that I'm in earnest. I don't think I'm an example of anything universal, though.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I don't mind at all. It's a valid point: there might always be something better, but if you're happy enough with what you have that something better is effectively inconceivable, why risk what you have to go in search of a hypothetical improvement? It's a good point.

-------

I guess the disconnect I'm feeling here is that your version of Christianity doesn't seem to come with any actual responsibilities. Of course there's more risk associated with looking for satisfaction elsewhere than with staying put -- because staying put doesn't actually come with a price. If you encounter something that seems like truth, you find a way to fit it into your religious worldview; if you encounter something ostensibly of your religion that doesn't seem like truth, you discard it. In all cases, you're still relying on your personal worldview for your perspective and guidance.

What I don't understand, then, is what you -- or anyone in a similar situation -- would get out of belonging to any particular religion. If what it ultimately boils down to is your understanding of truth, and if your religion acts mainly as a noise filter designed to deliver the most important truths to you first (but not exclusively), it seems to me that at best liberal religion functions as a ratings system for philosophy.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

I guess the disconnect I'm feeling here is that your version of Christianity doesn't seem to come with any actual responsibilities.

---

quote:

---

I guess the disconnect I'm feeling here is that your version of Christianity doesn't seem to come with any actual responsibilities.

---

quote:

---

because staying put doesn't actually come with a price.

---

quote:

---

if you encounter something ostensibly of your religion that doesn't seem like truth, you discard it.

---

Is this really the impression you have of what I've said, Tom?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Seems a fairly reasonable interpretation, to me.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Then I'm obviously doing an even worse job of explaining than I thought I was.

Edit: also a worse job of spelling.

Back to the drawing board.

[ August 24, 2005, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
As for responsibilities, I'm pretty sure it's my turn to do the dishes and take out the trash.

You know...it's like a lot of things, you can always skate by and do nothing. Or, you can only do what you're asked to do -- the minimalist or "satisficing" approach. Or, you can do more and take it more seriously.

I find my "responsibilities" growing commensurate with my willingness to take things seriously.

But I'm guessing you meant this in a different way. Like...doesn't God ASK anything of you? Yes indeed. And it's flipping difficult too! I'm supposed to be the best person I can be, and try to learn what that means. And serve others. And not be so full of myself. And give back. And not judge. And help. There's all kinds of stuff.

And there's things I'm not ready to do. Like "be a light unto the world" (usually interpreted to mean go out and "evangelize" in some active way). And I'm prepared to receive a calling. And I'm not ready to give up my precious vacation time to build houses in some needy area. But some of that stuff is a responsibility too. Maybe not those specific things. But I believe that faith leads to a need for action.


The other fun thing you asked is what do I get out of it? Well...a lot.



I mean, I have friends I wouldn't have met another way. I get to play drums. I will be taking some interesting classes. I get to sing. I've made bread. I made a stepping stone. I got to portray "Daniel" for a bunch of little kids.

And then there's the hope. The belief that things will be shown and explained. And that I'll like it. It might be a salve to the innate fear of "what if there's NOTHING after death" but then again, isn't that the very definition of hope -- an irrational belief in positive outcomes.

I also get 10% off of EVERYTHING. You wouldn't know about that. Not being a card-carrying member. But it's a great benefit. It's the real hidden meaning behind "Jesus Saves."

WWJD = What Would Jesus Discount?
A: EVERYTHING!
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
dkw, to me your version of Christianity, takes the the actual question of "How shall we then live?" in a much different light than many of the other persuasions. I suspect more seriously, and less flaunting than some of the other varieties.

I don't know if I can accurately describe the ways, but humanitarian service of all kinds, that is not necessarily religiously affiliated at all, seems to be more of an outpouring of your brand of Christianity.

AJ

(examples I can think of off hand, are the fact that you wouldn't buy your wedding flowers from south american countries where exploitation occurs, and you buy free trade chocolate if possible...)
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Could you contrast this with the offensive statement often made by theists that atheists do not have any morality, or any basis for morality, and that they have no reason not to simply do as they wish all the time?

---

quote:

---

I guess the question I have is what does it matter whether my "truth" is "THE TRUTH" that applies to everyone?

---

quote:

---

But I'm guessing you meant this in a different way. Like...doesn't God ASK anything of you? Yes indeed. And it's flipping difficult too! I'm supposed to be the best person I can be, and try to learn what that means. And serve others. And not be so full of myself. And give back. And not judge. And help. There's all kinds of stuff.

---

quote:

---

But would I, just like the patriarchs, become convinced of the existence of God by the evidence of my own experience of the world? Sure thing. And would I believe, in broad outline, the same general things about that God? Yep.

---

quote:

---

Hm. I submit that if there is a "THE TRUTH," knowing "The Truth" is probably the only thing in the world that matters.

---

quote:

---

I don't claim to know yet. I don't believe that I'll know before I die.

---

This is pretty much the definition of agnostic, Bob.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

quote:

---

The intended meaning was "What intellectual or moral positions do you get out of your belief, that wouldn't come from atheism?"

---

quote:

---

Moreover, I wonder if comrade TomD wasn't asking about a responsibility to believe, rather than do. It seems that there is no particular tenet of theology or Biblical narration that cannot be abandoned if you feel uncomfortable with it. Why not abandon all of them, then? If no single assertion has a real defense, then how can you defend them collectively?

---

quote:

---

This is pretty much the definition of agnostic, Bob.

---

quote:

---

Well, that is all very fine, to be sure, but there's nothing specifically Christian about it, is there? Atheists have a responsibility to do those things, too. And as for your list of rewards, those are good things in life, but the good things in life do not, oddly enough, come only to believers. As it happens, though, I think you misunderstood the question in any case. The intended meaning was "What intellectual or moral positions do you get out of your belief, that wouldn't come from atheism?"

---

So if atheists and non atheists share the same responsibilities, namely to do good and so forth, what does atheism have to offer that religion cannot provide?
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
A sense of smug superiority?

Oh wait, we get to have that too!

It's all good.


 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
This seems like every discussion about religion I've ever seen/heard/participated in. It all ends the same way - People believe what they believe, even when they can't explain why. Even when they can explain their faith, it's nearly impossible to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.

I loaned a book to a friend of mine in fourth grade. Months went by, and I never got it back. To this day, he violently swears on all that is holy that he gave it back, and I deny this just as violently. I have no idea anymore who's telling the truth, I know we each think we are. But maybe I'll never know. Religion's like that for me. It's hard to sway someone's beliefs, because belief is mainly something you feel, and, like music, you can try to explain it but words are never enough.
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
Because honestly, I think religion has better benefits than the competition.

1. Health care system that promises no sickness and death - but the premiums and the deductible are kinda high.

2. Investment Plan - treasures in heaven instead of treasures on earth where moth and rust consume

3. Life Insurance - if you are an innocent victim during one of God's more demonstrative moments, you and your family will be taken care of via resurrection.

But most people like the retirement plan - eternity.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
The purpose of religion threads (or at least my participation in them) is not to “convince” anyone, but to understand each other better. So the fact that no one is converted (either way) doesn’t make the thread a wasted exercise, even if it seems to be re-hashing old ground.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

So, sure. An atheist could arrive at pretty much every moral position I could arrive at. Except for being thankful to God for it all, there'd be very little difference. We might even behave in similar ways in similar situations.

So what?

---

quote:

---

Defend? From what?

As for abandoning things...why exactly would I do that? It would take a fair bit of hubris on my part to be convinced that I already know better than anyone else. I might have to set some things aside because I can't follow them, or don't understand them. But your assumption that it means I reject them and hold them to be false automatically is going a bit too far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by camus:
Because honestly, I think religion has better benefits than the competition.

1. Health care system that promises no sickness and death - but the premiums and the deductible are kinda high.

2. Investment Plan - treasures in heaven instead of treasures on earth where moth and rust consume

3. Life Insurance - if you are an innocent victim during one of God's more demonstrative moments, you and your family will be taken care of via resurrection.

But most people like the retirement plan - eternity.

---

quote:

---

You say that "I find my "responsibilities" growing commensurate with my willingness to take things seriously." If you wish to continue this, may I politely suggest that you put up, or shut up?

---

quote:

---

The purpose of religion threads (or at least my participation in them) is not to “convince” anyone, but to understand each other better. So the fact that no one is converted (either way) doesn’t make the thread a wasted exercise, even if it seems to be re-hashing old ground.

---

quote:

---

What's wrong with what you've got now, Tom?

---

quote:

---

I must say, however, that I am surprised by this sudden angry turn. You seemed to be interested in what others had to say. Was it just me that got you angry? I do feel like I got in the middle of you and dkw having a conversation. Maybe I shouldn't have done that.

---

quote:

---

And really, I'm not her. I haven't studied this stuff, and my attitude about it is a lot less well-thought-out than hers.

---

quote:

---

Sorry if I was wasting your time.

---

quote:

---

...hoping that things work out in the end, even that last bit isn't so much a "gotcha" as a "meh."

I'd like more from my religion than a "meh." I'd like something better than I have now

---

quote:

---

But if you think you're not trying to convert KoM, you're deceiving yourself.

---

Edit to add one more

You have GOT to be kidding.

Besides, proselytizing is against the user agreement.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"But isn't that the same as any answer to the ultimate question of whether there is a purpose in life?"

Yes. Yes, it is.
And while atheists and agnostics -- and I'm including myself, here -- can come up with their own hypothetical purposes (and while I'm at it, I think Hypothetical Porpoises would be a great name for a band), the simple fact is that those purposes aren't any more solidly grounded in ultimate truth than most other religions, which got their start in pretty much the same way.

I'd like the Truth. It's hubristic of me, but I'm actually completely confident that I could cope with learning it, even if it involved -- as I do not expect, mind you -- Great Old Ones and incomprehensible, uncaring monstrosities from beyond the pallid mists of eternity. But, then, I don't really believe that anything is incomprehensible, when you look at it right.
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
I was just hoping KoM would be a little nicer sometimes, but I guess I was just deceiving myself.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

But isn't that the same as any answer to the ultimate question of whether there is a purpose in life? Atheism doesn't offer anything more satisfying except to say, "don't worry about the purpose in life because there isn't any such grand purpose."

---

quote:

---

I think Hypothetical Porpoises would be a great name for a band

---

tell that to Dave Barry. He seems to like thinking of names for rock bands.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
KoM is a closet theophile. Deep down, he really loves God.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I disagree, camus. If there is no god, the human condition is that much more incredible and awe-inspiring. Not "meh" at all.

quote:

---

Personally, it would be a huge relief to discover that there really was a reason behind all the apparently random crap going on out there, or that there really is something bigger than ourselves.

---

quote:

---

I'm not particularly happy with the concept of oblivion, and I'd be glad to discover an alternative.

---

I'm undecided about oblivion, but right now is not the best time for me to try to sort that one through. I'll leave it alone for the time being.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I guess you'd know. I still think you're one of the most God-haunted people I've ever met.

Edit: that was to Tom. I've never met twinky.
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 

quote:

---

I disagree. Atheism offers the much more challenging proposition that you make your own purpose in life. Now, there's satisfaction!

---

quote:

---

KoM is a closet theophile. Deep down, he really loves God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by camus:
That's true, I suppose. And if I were an atheist, I would argue that atheism offers freedom from enslavement to an incomprehensible god, but I'm not an atheist.

---

Yeah, but I'm trying to avoid offending the theists, here.
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 

quote:

---

If there is no god, the human condition is that much more incredible and awe-inspiring.

---

You mean it's more incredible when you don't imagine that it's God that created us this way, that we were able to achieve this all on our own? I guess I can understand that. Although, when I look at all the atrocities that humans commit, I would rather believe that there is some ultimate reason for that (even if I don't quite understand it) instead of thinking that a billion years of evolution can create in us the concept of art, but not the means for peace. Ironic that I can have faith in an unprovable God, but not in humans.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
dkw, I wonder if you missed my big post, the last one on the previous page? You don't seem to be responding to it. Or have you given up, and are now just kibitzing?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I'm kibitzing tonight. I've done too much writing at work the last two days, and the idea of trying to string coherent paragraphs together right now is just not very appealing. Plus I still have a sermon to write for Sunday.

If you don't mind a short raincheck, I'll get back to it by Monday.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Take your time, there's no hurry.
 

---

Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

The purpose of religion threads (or at least my participation in them) is not to “convince” anyone, but to understand each other better. So the fact that no one is converted (either way) doesn’t make the thread a wasted exercise, even if it seems to be re-hashing old ground.

---

I don't think it's wasted. I love reading the arguments of people who are educated and eloquent, and who fervently believe what they believe. But if you think you're not trying to convert KoM, you're deceiving yourself.

That's the only way a thread like this ends, either everyone agrees to disagree, or everyone decides who's bringing what to the pot-luck dinner after services.

---

Well, the principals may never convince each other, but there are always the lurkers who are reading the thread.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Ic, you caught me. If you lived around here I’d totally try to convert you, just because I’d enjoy your presence in discussion groups. (My, what a selfish reason for evangelism. I am ashamed. )

It seems there’s nothing like a few hours of yard work to inspire me to labor in the air-conditioned comfort of my computer chair. From KoM’s page 5 post:

quote:

---

Well, in the first place, I have my Sundays free,

---

quote:

---

again, the existence, or not, of a god is a matter of fact . . . to be investigated by evidence. And if it is wrong, then I think the whole "Religion as search for truth" approach falls apart.

---

quote:

---

Now, certainly I have beliefs connected to 'spiritual', or at least emotional, experiences, too. I believe, for instance, that my girlfriend loves me, for which I can offer no evidence that would stand up in a court of law, or even in a science journal. But I don't reason from there to atheism!

---

quote:

---

Excuse me, but I'm not. Dkw has offered her own spiritual experiences as proof for the existence of something.

---

quote:

---

She has also said that by explaining those episodes, her faith moves her closer to an understanding of the ultimate reality. That is what I mean by saying that she believes her deepest meanings have connection to the workings of the Universe.

---

quote:

---

I haven’t discussed my own spiritual experiences, . . .

---

quote:

---

Quite so. How exactly would you go about proving it wrong? I think your invisible pink unicorn argument fails here (...)

---

quote:

---

I don’t want religion taught in public schools or its tenants displayed in courtrooms, I don’t think that the position “God exists” should be the default one on internet discussion boards.

---

quote:

---

Moreover, if other people, not so harmless, went around the city dressed as elves, leaving little gifts of poison for those they believed wicked, . . .

---

quote:

---

Does he claim that the toys I received as a child were from a man living at the North Pole? The evidence is against him, as my parents have confessed to the gift-giving,

---

They WHAT?!?

--Enigmatic
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Yeah, way to disillusion us here, Dana. Now I suppose you're going to say he doesn't still fill our stockings at Christmas, either.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Ooops.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

If you can prove to me that God does not exist – not that there’s no proof that God does exist or that it’s not necessary for God to exist, but actually prove that God does not exist – and do this for the God I believe in, not a strawman that you think I believe in – then I will agree with you that religion is meaningless....

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Does he claim that the toys I received as a child were from a man living at the North Pole? The evidence is against him, as my parents have confessed to the gift-giving,

---

They WHAT?!?

---

quote:

---

Yeah, way to disillusion us here, Dana. Now I suppose you're going to say he doesn't still fill our stockings at Christmas, either.

---

quote:

---

Ooops.

---

 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
It's been pages since anyone's mentioned it, but I wanted to bring up the suicide again. It looked to me that people were working from a pretty limited defintion of suicide, considering it as only the ultimate act of self hatred that people who are despairing, depressed, and/or suffering from mental illness. But that is hardly complete. It doesn't encompass philosophies such as certain branches of the Stoics, who considered unflinching suicide the appropriate response to certain situations or cultures like th Japanese where again, ritualized suicide was performed unflinchingly and partially out of a regard for others. It doesn't cover the Buddhist monks who used self immolation to protest the dperavities in Vietnam. It doesn't even really cover St. Maria Goretti who according to her official prayer:

quote:

---

strengthened by God's grace, did not hesitate even at the age of twelve to shed your blood and sacrifice life itself to defend your virginal purity

---

I think you'd have to address these stronger cases of suicide rather than presenting only the weak ones. People pretty much accept that the stereotypical type of suicide is a bad idea, but that's not sufficient when dealing with suicide as a whole.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Maria Goretti was stabbed to death by a man who was trying to rape her. In what definition of the word does that constitute suicide?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, in principle she could have submitted quietly to the rape, and perhaps lived. I agree with you, though, that that is a really, really stretched definition. She is hardly responsible for the actions of her attacker.

On the other hand, Squicky does have a point that perhaps statements of the form "I would rather die than X" should be considered. In most cases, to be sure, this is mere hyperbole. Nonetheless there are certainly people who take risks for their cause, even great risks, and people who pay the price. There are even those who consider such actions just, and assure the grieving parents that their sons are now in Heaven. Might not religion make such action easier?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Indeed it might. I don’t consider it suicide, though, if the actual goal is to do (or not do) something even if it results in death. Lighting yourself on fire as a protest, and the Stoic and Japanese examples Squicky gave I would consider suicide. I don’t see, however, that they have a great deal of relevance to the question of whether or not suicide is God’s will for a teenager who’s depressed and upset with her boyfriend.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, if we can establish that suicide might in some circumstances be the will of your god, that is a start on the specific case, yes?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
The beginning of this conversation was your question of how I “knew” that suicide was not God’s plan for Tinros. I don’t believe that my answer to that question was dependant on there absolutely never being any possible justification for suicide.

The conversation was, as I understood it, about how and when it is possible to say something is God’s will in a particular case, not about suicide in general.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Come now, on the seventh page of a Hatrack discussion, you are going to complain about the original direction of the thread?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
No. I'm just pointing out that in all seven pages I haven't given an opinion on whether or not there could possibly be a case where suicide was not against God's will.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Now's your chance, then.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
That opinion would be – I don’t know.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
The conversation I was addressing was the discussion of suicide in general that was ancillary to what you were saying, dkw. People were saying "Here's why suicide is always wrong." and basing their reasoning on an incomplete subset of suicide. They neglecteed the cases where people who were not depressed or mentally ill chose death for reasons other than "I hate life."

I don't consider Maria Goretti a suicide, but she's an example of someone who is at least perceived as choosing death (with somoene else as the agent) rather than allow something to happen. Since the point I was criticizing was people's depiction of the motivation, I felt including a celebrated case with the same motivation as the other class of suicides fit. Does the story of Maria Goretti change so much if she, rather than someone else, were the agent of her death, say by throwing herself off the top of a tall building rather than be raped? I don't think it does, but the people offering up the incomplete view of suicide are working from the assumption that it does and that Maria Goretti would in the suicide case be acting out her extreme self-hatred by this act.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Also, dkw, I've got a similar impression of what you've said about your faith as Tom. Not that I believe that this is an accurate impression, but that's what what you've written suggests to me. I get the working within one mythological system provides shaping and structure, though. It might help illuminate how you think of it if you explained why you choose Christianity rather than another religion. Also, if the Old Testament is a collection of writings detailing one people's struggle with understanding God, what is it that puts in a different class from the myths and writings of other cultures dealing with these same issues (especially the ones, like Greek and Roman, that our culture and most parts of Christianity derived from)?

---

I'm also interested to hear what you meant by Classic Christianity viewing God as the ground from which all things sprung, with, as I understood what you were saying, the idea that God was not seen as a separate, transcendental entity. That doesn't fit with what I know about what I would consider classic Christianity.
 

---